coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicants were born in 1980, 1977, 1979 and 1979 respectively.
5.  On 27 and 28 April 1998 respectively the applicants were taken into police custody by police officers from the Anti-Terrorism Department of the Ankara Security Directorate.
6.  On 7 May 1996 the applicants were brought before the public prosecutor at the Ankara State Security Court and subsequently before the investigating judge. After taking their statements, the investigating judge ordered that the applicants be placed in detention on remand.
7.  In an indictment dated 23 May 1996, the public prosecutor at the Ankara State Security Court initiated criminal proceedings against the applicants and accused them of being members of an illegal armed organisation, namely the TIKP (the Revolutionary Communists’ Union of Turkey). The applicants were further accused of carrying out activities on behalf of the TIKB, such as taking part in demonstrations on 1 May and 8 March (Women’s Day) during which they had chanted slogans and distributed TIKB leaflets. The public prosecutor asked the court to convict the applicants pursuant to Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code.
8.  On 9 October 1996 the Ankara State Security Court, composed of two civilian judges and a military judge, held that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the applicants were members of the TIKP, but found them guilty under Article 169 of the Criminal Code for aiding and abetting an illegal organisation. The first, second and third applicants were sentenced to two years and six months’ imprisonment, while the second applicant was sentenced to three years and nine months’ imprisonment.
9.  The applicants appealed. The chief public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation submitted his opinion on the merits of the appeal on 24 December 1997. This opinion was not served on the applicants, but read out during the hearing which took place on 18 March 1998.
10.  On 20 May 1998 the Court of Cassation, upholding the Ankara State Security Court’s reasoning and assessment of evidence, dismissed the applicants’ request for appeal. The decision was pronounced on 10 June 1998.
11.  The applicants’ request for rectification was further rejected on 30 June 1998.
6.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Budapest, Hungary.
7.  The applicant used to work in the Budapest office of the company “Ars Antiqua Restauro” (“A.A.R.”) registered in Poland. On 17 May 1995 he was dismissed from his job. On 27 May 1995 he lodged a claim for reinstatement with the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy).
8.  The court held hearings on 27 July and 5 December 1995. On 1 February 1996 the applicant asked the court to issue an interim order to safeguard his claim in the proceedings. On 2 April 1996 the court refused his request. On 14 May 1996 the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) dismissed the applicant's appeal against that decision.
9.  On 2 April 1996 the court held a hearing. At the next hearing held on 23 July 1996 the applicant modified his claim. As a consequence, the case was transferred to the Regional Court.
10.  The court held further hearings on 5 November and 17 December 1996. It also decided that two witnesses should be heard by two other courts. The witnesses were heard by the Cracow District Court and the Wrocław District Court on 30 June and 3 September 1997, respectively. On 26 November 1997 and 20 January 1998 the Regional Court held hearings. The hearing listed for 2 February 1998 was cancelled.
11.  At the hearing held on 7 April 1998 the Regional Court ordered the applicant to specify his claim. On 27 April 1998 the applicant modified his claim.
12.  On 27 May 1998 the court stayed the proceedings on the ground that the applicant had not complied with the order of 7 April 1998.
13.  Upon the applicant's appeal, on 9 July 1998 the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) quashed the decision of 27 May 1998.
14.  On 30 March 1999 the Regional Court ordered the applicant to specify his claim. On 4 April 1999 he submitted his pleading to the court.
15.  On 1 June 1999 the court held a hearing.
16.  On 9 November 1999 the Regional Court stayed the proceedings because the president of the defendant company, who was its representative, had died. Upon the applicant's appeal the Warsaw Court of Appeal quashed that decision on 28 December 1999.
17.  On 27 September 2000 the court again stayed the proceedings, since the defendant company had not yet appointed a new representative. That decision was set aside by the Warsaw Court of Appeal on 21 November 2000.
18.  On 15 February 2001, for the third time, the Regional Court stayed the proceedings. On 26 May 2001 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal.
19.  On 27 August 2001 the applicant's lawyer asked the trial court to appoint a guardian to act on behalf of the “A.A.R.“
20.  On 4 December 2002 the Warsaw District Court appointed a guardian. The proceedings were resumed at a later unknown date.
21.  On 11 February 2003 the Warsaw Regional Court gave judgment. The applicant lodged an appeal against this judgment.
22.  On 3 December 2003 the Warsaw Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance judgment.
23.  The applicant filed a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. It appears that the cassation proceedings are pending.
7.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Lublin, Poland.
8.  The applicant underwent a heart operation in the Child Health Centre Hospital (Centrum Zdrowia Dziecka) in Warsaw-Międzylesie from 11 April to 27 May 1988. In May and June 1995 the applicant had been diagnosed with jaundice, which he considered to be a result of medical negligence.
9.  On 10 September 1996 the applicant's mother filed an action for damages on his behalf with the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) against the Child Health Centre Hospital. The applicant claimed that he had contracted jaundice during his stay in the hospital in 1988. In addition, he claimed that as a result of medical negligence he suffered from complications, including heart arrhythmia.
10.  In March 1997 the defendant's counsel submitted his pleadings to the court. On 1 June 1997 the applicant's mother asked the court to adjourn the hearing until 30 June 1997 so that she would have sufficient time to prepare a reply to the defendant's submissions.
11.  The first hearing was held on 20 November 1997. On 11 December 1997 the applicant submitted his pleadings to the court.
12.  On 7 September 1998 the applicant asked to be granted legal aid. On 8 September 1998 the court granted his request and decided that the Warsaw Regional Bar would designate a lawyer for him.
13.  On 29 September 1998 the applicant increased his claim.
14.  The hearing listed for 5 October 1998 was adjourned at the request of the applicant's mother, since the Warsaw Regional Bar had not complied with the court's decision of 8 September 1998. The court again requested the Warsaw Regional Bar to designate a lawyer for the applicant.
15.  On 16 December 1998 the court held a hearing. The applicant's counsel asked the court to order an expert opinion. On 11 February 1999 the court ordered an expert opinion from a panel of doctors (a cardiologist and an epidemiologist). On 24 March and 16 April 1999 respectively, the experts submitted their opinions to the court. On 15 May 1999 the applicant challenged both reports.
16.  In her pleadings of 16 December 1999, the defendant's counsel argued that the Child Health Centre Hospital could not be a defendant in the case because it did not have standing in the proceedings and that the proper defendant should be the Minister of Health (Minister Zdrowia).
17.  On 13 March 2000 the court held a hearing. On 24 March 2000 the court summoned the Minister of Health (representing the State Treasury) to join the proceedings as a defendant. On 9 October 2000 the Warsaw Regional Court changed its decision of 24 March 2000 and summoned the Governor of Mazowsze as a defendant.
18.  On 18 April 2001 the Regional Court ordered yet another expert to prepare an opinion. On 11 February 2002 the expert submitted his opinion to the court.
19.  On 6 January 2004 the Warsaw Regional Court gave partial judgment. The defendant lodged an appeal with the Warsaw Court of Appeal.
20.  On 23 June 2004 the Court of Appeal quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case. The proceedings are pending before the Warsaw Regional Court.
4.  The first applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Vienna.
5.  On 19 July 2000 the Vienna Regional Court (Landesgericht für Strafsachen) convicted the first applicant under section 209 of the Criminal Code of having committed homosexual acts with an adolescent and sentenced him to a fine of ATS 4,500 (approximately EUR 330) with 75 days’ imprisonment in default. The sentence was suspended on probation. The Regional Court found that, in September 1999, the first applicant, who was then twenty years old, had had about ten homosexual contacts with a sixteen-year-old. In determining the sentence the court had regard to the applicant’s confession and his young age as a mitigating circumstance, as well as to the repetition of the offence as an aggravating circumstance.
6.  On 13 November 2000 the Vienna Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) dismissed the first applicant’s appeal on points of law, in which he had complained that section 209 of the Criminal Code was discriminatory and violated his right to respect for his private life, and in which he had also suggested that the Court of Appeal request the Constitutional Court to review the constitutionality of that provision.
7.  The second applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Traiskirchen.
8.  On 7 August 2001 the Wiener Neustadt Regional Court ordered the second applicant’s detention on remand on suspicion of having committed homosexual acts with an adolescent contrary to section 209 of the Criminal Code.
9.  On 24 August 2001 the Wiener Neustadt Regional Court convicted the second applicant under section 209 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to fifteen months’ imprisonment, fourteen of which were suspended on probation. It found that, from March 2001 until his arrest, the second applicant had a homosexual relationship with a seventeen-year-old. In determining the sentence the court had regard to the applicant’s confession as a mitigating circumstance, as well as to the repetition of the offence and a previous conviction as aggravating circumstances.
10.  On 7 September 2001 the second applicant was released from detention on remand.
11.  On 23 October 2001 the Vienna Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) dismissed the second applicant’s appeal on points of law, in which he had complained that section 209 of the Criminal Code was discriminatory and violated his right to respect for his private life, and in which he had also suggested that the Court of Appeal request the Constitutional Court to review the constitutionality of that provision. Upon the Public Prosecutor’s appeal it changed the sentence to the effect that only ten out of fifteen months of imprisonment were suspended on probation.
12.  Subsequently the second applicant was granted a stay of the execution of his sentence. On 7 July 2002 he requested a pardon and a further stay of execution pending the decision on his request for pardon. On 11 July 2002 the Wiener Neustadt Regional Court granted a further stay of execution.
13.  On 23 September 2002 the Federal President, upon the second applicant’s request, granted him a remission of the remaining sentence.
6.  The applicants were born in 1960 and 1982, respectively and live in Ivanovac, Croatia.
7.  On 20 November 1991 a member of the Croatian Army allegedly shot at the second applicant and killed his father and grandfather. The first applicant is the second applicant’s mother.
8.  On 19 February 1996 the applicants instituted civil proceedings before the Osijek Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Osijeku) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia.
9.  Pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1999 (Zakon o dopunama Zakona o obveznim odnosima, Official Gazette no. 112/1999), the Osijek Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on 13 November 2000.
10.  The proceedings resumed on 1 September 2003 pursuant to the “Damage Caused by Members of the Croatian Army and Police during the Homeland War Act 2003” (Zakon o odgovornosti Republike Hrvatske za štetu uzrokovanu od pripadnika Hrvatskih oružanih i redarstvenih snaga tijekom Domovinskog rata, Official Gazette no. 117/2003).
9.  The applicant was born in 1956 and currently lives in Diyarbakır. He was a shopkeeper at the time of the events giving rise to the application as well as the president of the Van branch of the Human Rights Association and a member of the Association’s National Management Committee.
10.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties and set out in the Court’s admissibility decision of 3 February 2000, were disputed. They may be summarised as follows.
The applicant
11.  On 21 March 1992, during the Newroz Festival, incidents occurred in Van which eventually led to a curfew being imposed. The applicant alleges that he was severely beaten outside the building of the People’s Labour Party (“HEP”) by police officers. He spent nine days in hospital. Following his discharge from hospital, he was charged with public order offences and detained on remand. He was eventually acquitted for lack of evidence.
12.  Also on 21 March 1992, the applicant’s shop was raided, the only shop out of 22 on the same floor to be raided. Goods and equipment in the shop were damaged or stolen. His subsequent claim for compensation was rejected by the Van Administrative Court.
13.  On 30 August 1992 the applicant’s car was damaged while parked opposite his house in Van. Between 5 November 1993 and 13 January 1994 he was taken into custody on three separate occasions. According to the applicant, he and his family received threatening and abusive telephone calls, sometimes three a day, ordering him to leave Van or be killed.
14.  On 11 February 1994 the applicant was attacked by two men who followed him on his way to a meeting at a friend’s office. When he recovered consciousness, he found himself in a lift-shaft. He sustained serious injuries. According to the applicant, the police did not follow-up this incident. After his discharge from hospital, the applicant received telephone calls warning him that he would not escape the next time.
The Government
15.  The Government maintained that there were illegal demonstrations, violence and looting in Van on 21 March 1992. The applicant was injured by stone-throwing demonstrators when he emerged from the HEP building where he had taken shelter. He was rescued from the crowd by the police and taken to hospital. He was later charged with, inter alia, organising the illegal demonstration and eventually acquitted.
16.  As to the lift-shaft incident of 11 February 1994, the Government stated that the police questioned the applicant on two occasions in connection with the incident, but he refused to provide them with any information. Accordingly, the police were unable to make any progress in their investigation.
17.  The Government denied that the applicant had ever been subject to arbitrary arrest. They refuted his claims that the authorities had been involved, either directly or indirectly, in any of the various incidents described by him and maintained that he had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in connection with his allegations.
6.  The applicants live in Zagreb.
7.  On 28 March 1992 the applicants’ weekend house in Sesvete, Croatia, was blown up by unknown perpetrators.
8.  On 9 March 1995 the applicants instituted civil proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia for their damaged property.
9.  Pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1996 (Zakon o izmjeni Zakona o obveznim odnosima, Official Gazette no. 7/1996), the Zagreb Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on 5 April 1996.
10.  The proceedings resumed on 20 November 2003 pursuant to the “Damage from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations Act 2003” (Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija, Official Gazette no. 117/2003).
4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Krems-Egelsee.
5.  On 30 January 1996 the Krems Municipal Council (Magistrat) asked the applicant to comment on the charge against her as she was suspected of illegal parking.
6.  On 22 February 1996 the applicant, who was assisted by counsel, submitted her comments.
7.  On 8 November 1996 the applicant filed a request to consult inter alia the ordinance upon which the charge was based.
8.  On 20 February 1997 the applicant submitted further comments.
9.  On 5 March 1997 the Municipal Council issued a penal order (Straferkenntnis) against the applicant finding her guilty of illegal parking and imposing a fine of 1,000 Austrian schillings (approximately 70 euros) with sixty hours’ imprisonment in default on her.
10.  On 2 April 1997 the applicant appealed against this decision. On 7 May 1998 the applicant filed further comments.
11.  On 16 June 1998 the Lower Austria Independent Administrative Panel (Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat) dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
12.  On 2 July 1998 the applicant filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court.
13.  On 29 September 1998 the Constitutional Court declined to deal with the applicant’s complaint for lack of prospects of success.
14.  On 12 January 1999 the Constitutional Court, upon the applicant’s request of 22 December 1998, remitted the case to the Administrative Court.
On 10 February 1999 the applicant supplemented her complaint with the Administrative Court. On 19 April 1999 the Independent Administrative Panel submitted its comments.
15.  On 25 January 2002 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint as being unfounded. This decision was served on the applicant’s counsel on 20 February 2002.
6.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Hanau, Germany.
7.  On 14 June 1992 the applicant’s house in Čepin, Croatia, was set ablaze by unknown perpetrators.
8.  On 21 June 1994 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia for his damaged property.
9.  Pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1996 (Zakon o izmjeni Zakona o obveznim odnosima, Official Gazette no. 7/1996), the Zagreb Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on 21 October 1998.
10.  On 17 July 2003 the relevant authorities granted the applicant reconstruction assistance pursuant to the Reconstruction Act (Zakon o obnovi, Official Gazette nos. 24/1996, 54/1996, 87/1996 and 57/2000).
11.  On an uncertain date the proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court resumed pursuant to the “Damage from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations Act 2003” (Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija, Official Gazette no. 117/2003).
12.  On 5 December 2003 the Zagreb Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s claim on the basis of its lack of jurisdiction. He appealed against that decision. It would appear that the proceedings are pending.
6.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Belgrade, Serbia and Montenegro.
7.  On 21 or 22 February 1992 her house and business premises in Zadar, Croatia, were blown up by unknown perpetrators.
8.  On 11 August 1994 she instituted civil proceedings before the Zadar Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zadru) against the Republic of Croatia and an insurance company.
9.  On 20 September 2002 the Zadar Municipal Court stayed the proceedings in respect of the Republic of Croatia. It based its decision on the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1999 (Zakon o dopunama Zakona o obveznim odnosima). Both the applicant and the Republic of Croatia appealed. They argued that the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1996 (Zakon o izmjeni Zakona o obveznim odnosima) should have been applied instead.
10.  On 6 November 2002 the Zadar Municipal Court decided to separate the proceedings in respect of the insurance company. It would appear that the proceedings against the insurance company are pending.
11.  On 31 July 2003 the “Damage from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations Act 2003” and the “Damage Caused by Members of the Croatian Army and Police during the Homeland War Act 2003” entered into force.
12.  On 17 December 2003 the Zadar County Court (Županijski sud u Zadru) quashed the decision of 20 September 2002 and remitted the case to the Zadar Municipal Court for a retrial. It would appear that the proceedings against the Republic of Croatia are also pending.
6.  The applicants were born in 1946 and 1955, respectively and live in Boleč, Serbia and Montenegro.
7.  On 6 or 7 May 1992 their house in Novska, Croatia, was set ablaze by unknown perpetrators.
8.  On 11 November 1996 they instituted civil proceedings before the Novska Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Novskoj) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia for their damaged property.
9.  Pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1996 (Zakon o izmjeni Zakona o obveznim odnosima), the Novska Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on 24 October 1997.
10.  The proceedings resumed on 22 October 2003 pursuant to the “Damage from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations Act 2003” (Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija).
6.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Zagreb.
7.  On 25 August 1992 the applicant’s house in Sukošan, Croatia was blown up by unknown perpetrators.
8.  On 19 July 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu), seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia for his damaged property.
9.  On 17 January 1996 Parliament introduced an amendment to the Civil Obligations Act (Zakon o obveznim odnosima) which provided that all proceedings concerning actions for damages resulting from terrorist acts were to be stayed, pending the enactment of new legislation. Before the enactment of such new legislation, damages for terrorist acts could not be sought.
10.  On 29 January 1997 the Zagreb Municipal Court stayed the proceedings.
11.  On 14 July 2003 Parliament passed the Act on Liability for Damage Resulting from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations (Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija, Official Gazette no. 117/2003 of 23 July 2003).
7.  The applicant was born in 1921 and lives in Zagreb.
8.  On 6 September 1991 his summer house in Starigrad, Croatia, was blown up by unknown perpetrators.
9.  On 7 September 1994 he instituted civil proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia for his damaged property.
10.  On 16 November 1995 the Zagreb Municipal Court gave judgment partly allowing the applicant’s claim.
11.  On an uncertain date the defendant appealed against the first instance judgment.
12.  Pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1996 (Zakon o izmjeni Zakona o obveznim odnosima), the Zagreb Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on 3 September 1997.
13.  On 31 July 2003 the “Damage from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations Act 2003” (Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija) entered into force. It provides that proceedings which were stayed pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1996 will resume. However, it is uncertain if and when the applicant’s proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court have resumed.